Is Bush a fisical moderate?

Let's assume he did have them

Where did he produce them and where did he store them?

I fully expect you to not even understand that statement vor.
 
That he's a liberal when it comes to money. You are no conservative.

How is Bush a fisical conserative when he has not veoted one spending bill yet?

Tax cuts are quite economically stupid if they are not permeanant (but that raises large numbers of questions as well as consequences). Recessions can be minimized through monetary policy much faster then fisical policy.

As you will recall, the head of one of the fed reserve banks was stated saying that he thought the recession was over in the same week congress passed the first tax cut.
 
The Bush administration represents the most reckless spending in US History. The national debt will soon surpass $8 trillion. 38 percent of that debt is owed to banks in China and Japan. The "internal debt" is created when one part of the government "borrows" from another. For example, $1.3 trillion has been "borrowed" from Social Security. This means if the government isn't fiscally solvent, the IOU notes are outhouse paper. There have been record breaking deficits for three consecutive years. The General Accounting Office, a bipartisan agency set up to do Congress directed research, has issued a report citing $43 trillion in federal fiscal commitments and liabilities through 2020. There has been an 800 percent increase in pork projects this year accounting for $27.3 billion. This has funded a $50 million indoor rain forest in Wisconsin, eradication of tree snakes in Hawaii for the Cane Sugar corporate giants, and a hall of fame for Alabama sports. The Homeland Security funRAB became a shameless pork orgy, including the purchase of a carrier for lawnmowers for one small towns annual lawn mower race. Congress has given itself a pay raise over six consecutive years while funding a Congressional Visitor Center at a half billion dollars.

In short, my answer is an extremely emphatic "NO!"
 
LARGEST UNIFIED SURPLUS EVER AND THE ONLY ON-BUDGET SURPLUS SINCE MEDICARE WAS ESTABLISHED


Instead of a $455 billion deficit, the surplus this year will be at least $230 billion. In 1992, the deficit in the Federal budget was $290 billion
 
JOHN LEONARD RUETH



SP4 - E4 - Army - Selective Service
1st Cav Division (AMBL)
21 year old Single, Caucasian, Male
Born on Jan 25, 1948
From LOYAL, WISCONSIN
His tour of duty began on Sep 17, 1968
Casualty was on Mar 17, 1969
in BIEN HOA, SOUTH VIETNAM
HOSTILE, GROUND CASUALTY
ARTILLERY, ROCKET, or MORTAR
Body was recovered
Religion
ROMAN CATHOLIC

Panel 29W - - Line 62

My brother; reason enough ?
 
I guess this neeRAB to be re-posteed so someone can get the point. Until then,

**********Tumbleweed***********
**********Tumbleweed***********
**********Tumbleweed***********
**********Tumbleweed***********
**********Tumbleweed***********
**********Tumbleweed***********
**********Tumbleweed***********
 
I get the same benefits as other vets and like I said they are outstanding especially if you have a service connected disability which I do..............Yeah I think the story exaggerates the situation.............It would not be the first time..........You ever read the NY or LA Times?

Not sure what all this has to do with whether President Bush is a Fiscal Consevative or not............SounRAB like another smoke screen by my liberal frienRAB........
 
Actually if you want to get technical, Econ happened on your hero Clinton's watch (I never had sex with that woman Ms Lewinsky) and was uncovered under the Bush administration...Nice try though.......... :rolleyes:
 
Hey VoR;

You claim I donot care for the flag, the Troops, and the Veterans; well read on, buddy.


May 25th, 2005 2:30 pm
Vets Sue Rumsfeld Over Health Care Cuts


By Robert Burns / Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Residents of a historic retirement home for war veterans filed a class-action lawsuit Tuesday against Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, asserting that the Pentagon chief has imposed excessive and illegal cutbacks in on-site medical and dental services.

The suit was filed in federal court on behalf of the nearly 1,000 residents at the Armed Forces Retirement Home in Washington, one of two such institutions managed by the Defense Department.

The home's chief financial officer, Steve McManus, said in an interview that the residents who filed the complaint do not fully understand the reasons for some of the changes. He said they have not only saved money but also produced efficiencies and improvements.

``We're really trying to improve the benefits for our residents and create the foundation for the financial stability of the Armed Forces Retirement Home,'' McManus said. The budget for operating the home has fallen from about $63 million last year to $58 this year, he said.

In their complaint, the home's residents said Rumsfeld has a ready remedy for the financial problems that led to the cutbacks in services and staffing, but he has chosen not to act.

They said Congress gave the Pentagon authority in 1994 to increase one source of the home's operating funRAB - a 50-cent-per-month payroll deduction paid by every enlisted member and warrant officer in the military. Raising it to $1 per month would generate $7 million a year in new revenue, the suit says.

The retirement home's operating costs are borne mainly by a trust fund and by monthly fees paid by its residents. Another source of revenue are the fines and forfeitures levied upon members of the active-duty military in judicial proceedings.

The lawsuit also named as a defendant the Pentagon official who manages the home, Timothy Cox.

By law the Armed Forces Retirement Homes, in Washington and in Gulfport, Miss., must provide ``on-site primary care, medical care and a continuum of long-term care services.'' In an April 27, 2004 letter to the residents group that was pushing for a reversal of cutbacks, Cox asserted that the reduced level of services was in compliance with the law, according to the lawsuit.

A spokesman for the group, Homer C. Rutherford, a retired Air Force senior master sergeant who has lived at the home for three years, said he had personally appealed to staff members of the House and Senate armed services committees to address the problem, but to no avail.

``This is why we're following through with this class-action suit,'' he said in an interview Monday. ``We feel we have nowhere else to go, and we feel that it is something that is vitally necessary for the health and welfare of the American veterans who are here at the home.''

Among the cutbacks cited by Rutherford and other residents are the closing in 2003 of the home's main clinic and an on-site pharmacy, elimination of on-site X-ray and electrocardiogram services and reductions in annual physicals as well as the number of on-site dentists.

The retirement home, previously known as the Soldiers' and Airmen's Home, was opened in 1851 for wounded and disabled war veterans. Four of the original buildings are still standing and are registered as national historic landmarks.

Veterans can live there if their active duty service in the military was at least 50 percent enlisted or warrant officer. They must have served on active duty for at least 20 years and be at least 60 years old. Also eligible are veterans unable to earn a living due to a service-related disability or whose disability is not service related but who served in a war zone.

All female veterans who served before 1948 are eligible.
 
Back
Top